The answers were varied: Two maybes, one yes and one no.

Here are some good pull-quotes from the article that sum up the sentiment fairly well. First, from Paul Vaughan, business operations director, Rugby Football Union, who said “maybe”:

Brands that want to reach a fanbase have to find the right way of doing it and pass the fan-cynicism test. Fans are smart and can see through brands that are out to exploit. However, research also shows that fans have a greater propensity to buy a brand if that brand invests in their passion.

Coming in with a “yes” vote was Scott Garrett, Director at Synergy Sponsorship. His reasoning is that transparency is key to gaining the trust of “unofficial” organisations:

Any form of brand association must be sense-checked for brand fit. If there’s even the slightest sense of a brand trying to shoehorn its way into fans’ psyches or leverage legit imate passions, the informal networks that sponsors seek to exploit, will turn against them with alarming alacrity.

The lone “no” vote” came from Chris Townsend, Commercial Director at LOCOG (The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games), who argues that brand alliances is a legal grey area and runs the risk of cheapening exclusivity agreements:

[T]here is a thin line between innovative and illegal. Brands pay millions of pounds to be officially and exclusively linked to sporting events – without our sponsors, for example, Lon don 2012 simply would not happen. Choosing an unofficial route brings significant risks; while the marketing department sees a cheap and easy means of exposure, the legal department could be bracing itself for a busy time.

This is a tough subject because, as Paul Vaughan pointed out, sport fans are a fervent lot when it comes to their home squad. For marketing purposes, that’s a very desirable group to be aligned with. The “unofficial” group will seek out the validation of being aligned with an official sponsor, however they’re less likely to take on the marketing and advertising responsibilities.

As always, transparency is key. Scott Garrett nailed it when he pointed out that fans can turn the tides very quickly if they feel that they’re being taken advantage of. If there’s transparency in the agreement, brands are less likely to experience a harsh backlash.

Glasshouse, which helped G-14 with the project, thinks these trends will accelerate over the next decade driven by pressures from politicians and Civil Society to engage more actively in dealing with social issues (look at the European White Paper on Sport). As well as this external pressure, professional sport, especially football, will seek to build relevance and esteem with their newly expanding fan bases across the globe. To read the BITC / G-14 report, go to G14.com and dig through to News ‘New Report Provides Insight into…‘

The article also points out the positive impact that strong communiy relations can have for an organisation:

It also makes good business sense for a club to be involved in this sort of outreach scheme. “By engaging with your community and understanding the needs in your community, it can really help improve your brand and reputation,” said Michelle Brassell from Business in the Community, an organisation of businesses who aim to improve their impact on society. “It can be more favourable in securing funding or for a planning commission to develop a stadium, for example.”

To read the Guardian article in its entirety, click here.

The Guardian reported that escalating Olympic costs could mean less lottery funding for general sports projects, including grassroots sport. According to Tim Lamb, the chief executive of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which represents 270 sports bodies: “We don’t want to be in a situation in five years’ time where those local clubs are threatened by a showpiece even which only a small proportion of the population will visit. … The risk is that Olympic cost over-runs which have nothing to do with sports clubs may, in the long run, end up affecting their ability to grow and get more people into active life styles.”

And the same day, in the Daily Telegraph, Derek Mapp, the chairman of Sport England, said that he would do everything in his power not to let grassroots sport fall by the wayside: “I am not going to be a polite lame duck that says, ‘OK, I’ll give you another £100 million. … There comes a time when the sacrifice becomes so painful that you start to destroy the very purpose of what you are doing it for.” He said his goal is increased participation in sport now, and he would not let the government “see us as an easy solution.”

It is clear that many in the sports community are concerned that the total public sector pot for sports funding can’t grow infinitely and that competition between elite and grass roots and Olympic and non-Olympic sports is likely to heat up. Let’s hope this doesn’t degenerate into an ongoing public fight which will only serve to undermine public confidence in the ‘value’ of the Olympics. Bad news scares off corporate sponsors and it has always been clear that building corporate investment in both Games and in the development of sports outside the context of the Games is critical to achieving increased levels of sustainable sports and fitness participation.